INVESTIGATION ON THE CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO (CBR) BEHAVIOR OF

SUBBASE REINFORCED WITH WASTE POLYETHYLENE TEREPHTHALATE

(PET) BOTTLE STRIPS
Jaron B. Francisco1, Louie Gie P. Adelino 2, Rocess D. Casupanan3 Julie Mae R. De Vera 4,
Mark Joseph M. Magtanong 5, Phoevee D. Sumang6, and Inla Diana C. Salonga7

Department of Civil Engineering

Don Honorio Ventura Technological State University
Cabambangan, Bacolor, Pampanga, Philippines
1
jaron.francisco@yahoo.com
2
Charlieparker046@gmail.com
3
2377casupanan@gmail.com
4
Juliemaedevera22@gmail.com
5
tufli062317@gmail.com
6
sumangphoevee@gmail.com
7
engr.cayabyab@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT

Plastic waste which imparts to the solid waste that is being generated in metropolitan area
and over-crowded cities in the Philippines adverse major environmental problems like clogging in
drainage system and waterways. This study was conducted to mitigate the challenges facing both
waste management and civil engineering field by investigating the California Bearing Ratio (CBR)
behavior of the subbase reinforced with waste PET bottle strips compared to conventional subbase.

Furthermore, the primary objective of this study was achieved through laboratory
experimental work conducted at the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) Region
III involving Particle Size Distribution, Standard Proctor Compaction Test and California Bearing
Ratio (CBR) testing. First, tests were performed on Subbase A derived from Nueva Ecija, which
is reinforced with randomly mixed PET bottle strips of different percentages of 1/3%, 2/3% and
1% (of dry weight of soil), all with an Aspect Ratio (AR) of 1 (10 mm x 10 mm). Test result show
that 1/3% of PET Bottle strips produce a maximum CBR but less than the CBR value of the
conventional subbase. Thus, a secondary tests where done with a different type of subbase
designated as Subbase B derived from Floridablanca of varying percentages of 0.2% and 0.4% (of
dry weight of soil) PET bottle strips both with an Aspect Ratio of 1 (10 mm x 10 mm) and 2 (10
mm x 20mm).

In addition, correlation analysis has been executed to established the most suitable and
beneficial proportion and resulted that 0.2% of PET bottle strips with an Aspect Ratio of 1 is
applicable on less coarser subbase only considering the length of strips, MDD, OMC and CBR
values.
Keywords: California Bearing Ratio, PET bottle strips, reinforced subbase
 INTRODUCTION
As of 2016, more than 50% of the
world's population lives in urban
environments. By 2030, this value is
projected to reach 60% and one in three
people will live in cities with more than
500,000 inhabitants (UN 2016). The ever -
increasing population growth, urbanization,
and rising living standards resulting from
technological innovations have contributed to
the growing amount of solid wastes
produced. Managing these disposed wastes in
the long run becomes a major environmental
issue. According to United Nations
Environment Programme, between 60% and
70% of marine plastic waste comes from five
countries in Asia - China, Vietnam, the
Philippines, Indonesia and Sri Lanka.
Plastic is lightweight, versatile, non-
biodegradable material and researches have
found that this material can remain on earth
for 4500 years without degradation. Today,
every vital sector of the economy has been
virtually revolutionized by the application of
plastic. Plastics are used in a variety of ways:
packaging, furniture, automotive, agriculture,
sports, electrical and electronic goods, health
and safety, construction and construction,
and consumer and household appliances that
increase the use of plastic products increases
the plastic waste. This has become a
challenge for authorities in charge of waste
management.
Particularly for water and soft drink
bottles, polyethylene terephthalate or PET is
one of the most common and valuable plastic
material. PET bottles are the most recovered
in the Philippines due to their high residual
value or their predicted value after
consumption.
Because of its residual value, the
Philippines has one of the highest PET bottle
recovery rates at 90 percent in a study
conducted by global advocacy firm
McKinsey Center for Business and
Environment.
The Ecological Solid Waste
Management Act of 2000 (RA 9003), which
was promulgated in January 2001, in the
Philippines, officially declares to minimize
solid waste all through its process for the
purpose of ensuring the safety of human
health and protection of the environment as
well as maximizing the efficient use of scarce
natural resources. Full-scale implementation
of community-based collection system of
recyclable materials has started at some local
and barangay levels.
In many developing countries,
applications of non - traditional materials
have been tested in road construction, either
natural or waste products. Some materials are
durable and, when contacted with water,
some of them have been continually
deforming. Industrial waste has gained
prominence, being used as civil engineering
material as an individual or mixed with
natural soils or stones or admixture to fit as
building materials. Traditional inert materials
are replaced by materials that otherwise
would be environmentally burdensome
(Choudhary et al. 2010).
Soil reinforcement is the process of
integrating discrete fibers oriented or
randomly distributed in the soil, such as
shredded plastics, tire shreds, and metal parts
(Anagnostopoulos et al. 2013). Over the
years, in geotechnical engineering, the use of
geotextiles and other polymeric
enhancements such as geogrids has increased
dramatically. However, in some cases, their
cost becomes a prohibitive factor for their
wide-spread use, especially for low-cost
embankment or road construction. Early
pavement failures indicate that pavement
design should be based on the strength of the
soil and active drainage methods should be
used to remove free water from the subbase
of the pavement. (Charlie, 1994).
METHODOLOGY
Research Materials
Subbase Course
Two types of subbase are used in this
study which are locally available, collected
from streams in Nueva Ecija (Subbase A)
provided by the DPWH Region III and
Palakol River in Floridablanca (Subbase B).
The soil is collected at a certain depth from
the ground level. The disturbed soil sample is
then transported to Department of Public
Works and Highways laboratory.
Plastic Material
The reinforcement used is composed
of PET waste water bottles derived from the
disposal vicinity area in DHVTSU,
households and junkshops, washed and cut
into strips with width and length of (10 mm x
10 mm) and (10 mm x 20 mm) using scissor
and measuring ruler.
Quantity of plastic reinforcement
(𝑊𝑝 ) to be added to a given amount of natural
soil is obtained using the given formula;
𝑊𝑝 = 𝑎𝑊𝑑 Eq. (1)
Where: 𝑎 = is the percentage of plastic
content;
𝑊𝑑 = is the weight of dry natural
soil/course
The properties of plastic reinforced
soil change with the addition of plastic strip
content with varying sizes. Subbase A with
plastic strips of varying percentages 1/3 %,
2/3 %, and 1% per dry weight of soil
respectively was tested. Later, the effect of
change in strip size of 0.2 % and 0.4 % plastic
content was studied in Subbase B,
Equipment and Apparatus
All experiments in this work were
conducted at the laboratory of the
Department of Public Works and Highways
(DPWH Region III).
Experimental Work
A series of laboratory tests are
conducted on both type of subbase as well as
on plastic reinforced subbase. Laboratory
tests used in the research include:
1) Grain Size Distribution
2) Standard Proctor Compaction Test
(Moisture-Density Test)
3) California Bearing Ratio Test
Grain Size Distribution
Sieve analysis was performed using a
standard set of I.S. Sieves. The sample was
dried in the oven with a maintenance
temperature of 110 +/- 5 ºC and placed on the
top of the set of sieves and shaken manually
by hand.
Apparatus used include set of sieves,
weighing balance and oven. Figure 1 shows
that grain size greater than 2 mm are
considered as gravel, while the size range of
0.075 mm to 2mm are considered as sand and
grain size that are less than 0.075 mm are
considered as silt and clay.
Figure 1: Definition of Grain Size according to AASHTO
Standard Proctor Compaction Test
A series of Standard Proctor Tests are
conducted on both unreinforced and
reinforced plastic subbase as per AASHTO T
180 Procedure. First, the amount of plastic
strips (Wp) needed to be mixed in Subbase is
calculated for particular percentage of plastic
strips (a) given the in Eq. (1). The cut plastic
strips thus obtained are added to natural soil
after making dry soil. Strips and soil are
mixed thoroughly until mix becomes uniform
and homogeneous approximately.
The equipment used for the testing
method includes: 4.5 kg rammer, 18 in. drop,
five layers, mold size and particle size in
Table 1 under Method D.
Table 1: Mold Size, Particle Size, and Number of Blows for
Method A, B, C, and D
Methods Mold Size Particle Size
Method A 4 in. #4
Method B 6 in. #4
Method C 4 in. ¾ in
Method D 6 in. ¾ in
California Bearing Ratio Test
The samples were made at the
maximum dry density then a surcharge plate
was placed on the specimen prior to testing,
soaked for a shorter immersion period (24
hours) since it has been observed that the
shorter period does not affect the test results
as per AASHTO T193. The CBR apparatus
(see Figure 2.2) consists of a 150 mm (6 in)
diameter mold with a base plate and collar, a
loading frame with a 50 mm diameter
cylindrical plunger and dial gauges to
measure the soaking expansion and
penetration values. The load value to cause
2.54 mm and 5.08 mm penetration are
recorded. These loads were expressed at
respective deformation levels as a percentage
of the standard load value in order to obtain
CBR values.
𝐶𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
CBR = 𝑥 100
𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑟𝑑 𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑
The CBR value of the specimens were
calculated by the ratio of the corrected load
value to the standard value (70 kg⁄cm2 and
106 kg⁄cm2 ) at 2.54 and 5.08 mm
penetration and multiplying these ratios by
100.
For the final phase of obtaining the
CBR value, the calculated unit load (kg⁄cm2 )
was plotted on the y-axis against the depth of
penetration (mm) on the x-axis. Correction
was applied on the curves having concave
upward shape by adjusting the location of the
origin and extending the straight line portion
of the curve downward until it intersects the
x-axis.
Test Procedure
Number of The goal in the first series of tests is
Blows
25
to determine on which of the reinforced
56 subbase possess a maximum CBR value. Due
25 to the limitation of sample (Subbase A) only
56
one trial was made for every percentage (1%,
1/3%, 2/3% of dry weight of soil) with a
dimension of 10 mm x 10 mm. The result
then was observed and still the tests produce
a uniform result.
Since the maximum CBR value was
found on subbase A with 1/3%, further test
was conducted on subbase B with a
percentage of 0.2% and 0.4%, each has an
Aspect Ratio (Length/Width) of 1 (10 mm x
10mm) and 2 (10 mm x 20 mm). This is to
examine if there will be a change in
engineering properties of the subbase
considering the other variable such as the
dimension of the strip and the type of subbase
used.
Correlation Analysis
Correlation Analysis is used to
understand the nature of relationships
between different variables. It is a method of
Eq.(2)
statistical evaluation used to study the
strength of a relationship between two
numerically measured, continuous variables.
This particular type of analysis is useful when
a researcher wants to establish if there are
possible connections between variables. The
correlation coefficient (r), a value between -1
and +1, tells how strongly two variables are
related to each other (see Figure 2).

Data lie on a perfect straight line with a

negative slope. A correlation coefficient Figure 3: Typical Normal Roadway Section
of -1 indicates a perfect negative
correlation. As variable X increases,
variable Z decreases. As variable X
decreases, variable Z increases.
r = -1 RESULT AND DISCUSSION
No linear relationship between the The behavior of the unreinforced
variables. A correlation coefficient near
0 indicates no correlation.
subbase was examined by focusing on the
r=0
influence of the PET bottle strips inclusion
into the engineering properties of the subbase
Data lie on a perfect straight line with a
positive slope. A correlation coefficient specifically its CBR strength.
of +1 indicates a perfect positive
correlation. As variable X increases, Result of Particle Size Distribution (PSD)
variable Y increases. As variable X
decreases, variable Y decreases.
Test
r = +1
Table 2: Particle Size Distribution Results
Figure 2: Description of Correlation Coefficient
Opening % Passing % Passing Requirement
(mm) (Subbase A) (Subbase B)
50.0 100 100 100
Cost Analysis 37.5 94 100
25.0 85 88 55-85
19.0 80 83
In determining the amount of soil or 12.5 76 74
subbase required an empirical formula was 9.5 69 68 40-75
used given by the equation: 4.75 50 59
2.00 31 50
0.425 13 26
𝜸𝒆𝒎𝒃𝒂𝒏𝒌𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕 (𝑽𝒆𝒎𝒃𝒂𝒏𝒌𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕 ) = 0.075 7 11 0-12

𝜸𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒓𝒐𝒘𝒑𝒊𝒕 (𝑽𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒓𝒐𝒘𝒑𝒊𝒕 ) Eq. (3)

The assumed relative compaction for
the soil is 95%. Once the required weight of
the PET Bottles has been determined the cost
per kilogram of PET Bottles will be used,
thus the Cost of Soil Reinforcement will be
solved. Typical normal roadway section or
design used in this study is shown in Figure
3.
Particle Size Distribution test was
conducted on both type of unreinforced
subbase only. The soil sample consisting of
gravel, sand, silt and clay somehow tells
which of the soil type is likely to control the
engineering properties of the subbase. Table
2 presents the particle size distribution on
both unreinforced subbase A and B
respectively. For unreinforced Subbase A,
the percentage retained on No. 10 (2.00 mm)
is 69% of the soil specimen which generally
classified as gravel and the remaining 31%
are then classified as either sand, silt, and clay
that binds the material, while the particle
sizes of Subbase B that retained on No. 50 to
No. 10 (2.00 mm) sieve consist of 50%,
which implies that half of the percentage of
the soil sample consist of gravels and the
other 50% are considered as fines. It has been
observed that Subbase B has more fines than
Subbase A which binds the coarser
aggregates. The test results shows that there
was an increase in fines in the Subbase B
compared to the previous subbase.
Result of Standard Proctor Compaction
Test
For Subbase A only reinforced
subbase with 1% of PET bottle strips
undergoes compaction test due to the
limitation of the subbase sample. The
minimum optimum moisture content (OMC)
and maximum dry density (MDD) between
the unreinforced subbase A and reinforced
1% subbase A, was used as the OMC and
MDD of 1/3 % and 2/3 % reinforced subbase
A. Given in Table 10 is the OMC and MDD
used in the subbase A for the CBR test.
Table 3: OMC and MDD of reinforced and unreinforced
Subbase A
SUBBASE A
No. % PET OMC (%) MDD
Bottle Strip (𝒌𝒈⁄𝒎𝟑 )
1 0% 6.45 2310
2 1/3 % 6.45 2130
3 2/3 % 6.45 2130
4 1% 7.50 2130
Shown in Table 3 the MDD and OMC
relationship of the subbase with 0% and 1%
of PET Bottle strips since only two samples
undergone the compaction test. The
compacted unreinforced subbase produce an
OMC of 6.45% and MDD of 2310 kg⁄m3 . In
comparison with the reinforced Subbase A
with and 1% of PET Bottle strips, the OMC
increases a percentage of 16.3% which means
more water was uses to achieve its MDD
while the MDD decreases 7.8%. The
minimum OMC and MDD between the
unreinforced subbase A and reinforced 1%
subbase A, was used as the OMC and MDD
of 1/3 % and 2/3 % reinforced subbase A
which is 6.45% and 2130 kg⁄m3
respectively.
Table 4: OMC and MDD of reinforced and unreinforced
Subbase B
No. % PET OMC (%) MDD
Bottle Strip (𝒌𝒈⁄𝒎𝟑 )
1 0% 9.80 2057
2 0.2 % 9.10 2050
3 0.4 % 9.20 2040
As shown in Table 4, it demonstrates
the dry density and moisture content relation
of the unreinforced and reinforced Subbase B
with varying percentage (0.2% and 0.4%) of
PET Bottle strips. The compacted natural
Subbase B yielded an OMC of 9.8% and a
MDD of 2057 kg⁄m3 .
When the subbase was reinforced
with 0.2% PET Bottle strips, the compacted
reinforced subbase composite yielded an
OMC of 9.10% and MDD of 2050 kg⁄m3 .
Comparing unreinforced subbase with the
subbase with 0.2% of PET Bottle strips, there
was a reduction of 7.1% in the OMC and a
minimal decrease of 0.34% in the MDD value
of the unreinforced subbase. This implies that
the addition of 0.2% of PET Bottle strips in
the subbase made the reinforced subbase
lighter.
Furthermore, when the subbase was
reinforced with 0.4% of PET Bottle strips, the
compacted reinforced subbase composite
yielded to 9.2% OMC and 2040 kg⁄m3 .
Comparing reinforced subbase with 0.4% of
PET Bottle strips to subbase with 0.2% of
PET Bottle strips, there was an increase of
1.1% in the OMC while a decrease of 0.49%
in the MDD. This shows that during the
compaction of reinforced subbase 0.4% of
PET Bottle strips more water was used
compared to the subbase with 0.2% of PET
Bottle strips. This could be because the
percentage of PET Bottle strips was exceeded
and the more PET Bottle strip is added
 beyond 0.2% the more water is required and Table 6: CBR Results for Subbase B

it becomes difficult to compact the composite SUBBASE B

subbase, which leads to lower value of MDD. CBR CBR
% PET (%) at (%) at Actual
Comparing the results of the Ave.
strip Trial 2.54 5.08 CBR
CBR
compaction test for Subbase A and B, it AR mm mm Value
depth depth
shows that Subbase B yield an increase of
0 1 117 126 126
51.9% to achieve its OMC. This implies that
0 2 116 124 124 126
Subbase B possess more fines than the
0 3 119 128 128
Subbase A and requires more water to
0.2 AR=1 1 131 126 131
achieve its OMC while its MDD decrease
0.2 AR=1 2 133 128 133 131
11% compared to Subbase A which means
0.2 AR=1 3 129 124 129
that well graded granular subbase can be
compacted to higher densities than uniform 0.2 AR=2 1 64 75 75
0.2 AR=2 2 66 75 75 75
or silty soil/subbase.
0.2 AR=2 3 63 74 74
Result of California Bearing Ratio Test 0.4 AR=1 1 89 113 113
Table 5: CBR Results for Subbase A 0.4 AR=1 2 91 112 112 113
0.4 AR=1 3 86 113 113
SUBBASE A
2.54 mm CBR 5.08 mm CBR 0.4 AR=2 1 99 97 99
depth (%) depth (%) 0.4 AR=2 2 99 97 99
% Actual 99
penetration at penetration at
PET CBR
2.54 5.08 0.4 AR=2 3 99 96 99
strips Corr. Std. Corr. Std. Value
mm mm
Load Load Load Load
depth depth
0% 110 70 157 190 106 179 179
1/3 % 90 70 129 145 106 137 137 Table 6 shows the CBR values of the
2/3 % 32 70 46 56 106 53 53 5 samples compacted at their respected
1% 17 70 24 38 106 36 36
optimum moisture content (OMC). The test
was executed in accordance to the
Table 5 shows the CBR values of the procedure in AASHTO Designation: T 193.
4 samples compacted at their respected The inclusion of PET bottle strips of 0%,
optimum moisture content (OMC). The test 0.2% with AR=1, 0.2% with AR=2, 0.4%
was executed in accordance to the procedure with AR=1, and 0.4% with AR=2 to
in AASHTO Designation: T 193. The reinforce the subbase B resulted a CBR
inclusion of PET bottle strips of 0%, 1/3%, values (%) of 126%, 131%, 75%, 113% and
2/3% and 1% into the subbase A, resulted a 99% respectively.
CBR values (%) of 179, 137, 53 and 36
respectively. The analysis of the results is Evaluation of CBR Results
elaborated below. Table 7: Evaluation of CBR Test Result for Subbase A

%
CBR
PET
Material (%) Requirement Result
Bottle
Value
Strip
Unreinforced
0 179 Min. 30 Passed
Subbase A
Reinforced
1/3 137 Min. 30 Passed
Subbase A
Reinforced
2/3 53 Min. 30 Passed
Subbase A
Reinforced
1 36 Min. 30 Passed
Subbase A
 It is been evaluated that the Bottle strips must be limited up to 0.2% only
unreinforced subbase A which has a CBR with a dimension not exceeding 10 mm X 10
value of 179% is 6 times stronger than the mm.
minimum requirement of CBR value of 30% Furthermore, Subbase B which has
for subbase course as stated in ITEM 200 of more fines than the Subbase A shows a
DPWH Blue book. This resulted due to the potentiality for the application of PET Bottle
percentage of gravel present in the sample strip reinforcement, compared to the results
that gives strength to the subbase. Also, all of of Subbase A where it shows a relatively
the reinforced subbase passed the decrease in CBR value, meaning the
requirement for the minimum CBR value application of PET Bottle strip is more
though there was a decrease in its CBR value suitable for subbase with more fines, or with
when the PET bottle strip increases. Thus, the same characteristics as Subbase B.
reinforced subbase A with 1/3% of PET
bottle strips with the maximum CBR value Results of Correlation Analysis
among the reinforced subbase was used as a Table 9: Result of Correlation Analysis for Subbase B
basis for the next tests which involves new Subbase %PET Length MDD OMC CBR
type of subbase (subbase B), percentage of B
%PET 1
reinforcement (0.2% and 0.4%) and Length 0 1
MDD -1 0 1
dimension of the strip (10 mm x 10 mm and OMC 1 0 -1 1
10 mm x 20mm) with an Aspect Ratio (AR) CBR 0.0733 -0.8552 -0.0733 0.0733 1

of 1 and 2 respectively.
Table 10: Evaluation of Correlation Analysis for Subbase B
Table 8: Evaluation of CBR Test Result for Subbase B
Relationship Correlation Evaluation
Coefficient
%
PET
CBR % PET strips – 0 No correlation
Material (%) Requirement Result Length of strips
Bottle
Strip
Value % PET strips – -1 Very strong negative
Unreinforced MDD correlation
Subbase
0 126 Min. 30 Passed % PET strips – 1 Very strong positive
Reinforced OMC correlation
Subbase 0.2 131 Min. 30 Passed % PET strips – 0.073302 Very weak positive
with AR=1 CBR correlation
Reinforced Length of strips – 0 No correlation
Subbase 0.2 75 Min. 30 Passed MDD
with AR=2 Length of strips – 0 No correlation
Reinforced OMC
Subbase 0.4 113 Min. 30 Passed Length of strips – -0.85519 Strong/High negative
with AR=1 CBR correlation
Reinforced MDD – OMC -1 Very strong negative
Subbase 0.4 99 Min. 30 Passed correlation
with AR=2 MDD – CBR -0.0733 Very weak negative
correlation
OMC – CBR 0.073302 Very weak positive
correlation
It was found that all of the test
specimen passed the minimum requirement
for the CBR of the Subbase material, though The result of the correlation analysis
there was a relatively decrease in CBR value is presented in Table 9 and from Table 10 it
in other subbase specimen, only the can be inferred that % PET Bottle strips has a
reinforced subbase with 0.2% of PET Bottle very strong negative correlation to MDD and
strips with an AR=1 showed an increase in a very strong positive correlation to OMC,
CBR compared to the conventional subbase. which means as % PET Bottle strips
Thus it can be inferred that inclusion of PET increases, the MDD decreases while the
OMC increases. Thus, it can also be inferred
that OMC and MDD are inversely
proportional to each other since it shows a
very strong negative correlation. The
variation in length also produce a strong/high
negative correlation with CBR value,
whereas the length of the strip increases, the
value of CBR decreases and vice versa.
Furthermore, there was no correlation
between the length of the PET bottle strips to
the result of MDD and OMC. Also, there was
a very weak correlation between the MDD
and OMC to the value of CBR. This shows
that MDD and OMC of the reinforced
subbase does not affect the value of CBR
which means it can either increase or
decrease. So as to the relationship of % PET
Bottle strips to the CBR value of the
reinforced subbase.
Result of Cost Analysis
Table 11: Cost of Soil Reinforcement
Require Weight of
Unit Cost
per Kg of
PET Bottles per Quantity of
Kg. considering 1 PET Bottles
PET
Bottles
km length of (Wt.=18.9g)
Reinforcement
roadway
₱ 20.00 3427.59 kg 181,354
From Table 11 it is presented that for
every 1 km of a 4m road carriageway with a
subbase thickness of 0.2m, it requires a
3427.59 kg of PET Bottle strips or an
approximately 181,354 pcs. of waste PET
Bottles to be used as a soil reinforcement with
an amount of ₱ 68,551.80. Thus, it can also
be inferred that this type of material can be
used as an economical means of soil
reinforcement that can improve the
engineering performance of the sub base
layer in terms of its CBR strength without the
use of natural gravels.
CONCLUSION
The influence of waste PET Bottle
strips on sample subbase were studied by
conducting test with various percentages of
plastic strips and in varying sizes. The
following conclusions are drawn:
The application of PET Bottle strip
reinforcement is more suitable on subbase
that are less coarser (i.e. the % passing in No.
10 (2.00 mm) sieve is greater than or equal to
50%) or in low quality subbase. MDD values
starts to decrease due to the inclusion of PET
Bottle strips. Also, OMC values show an
opposite trend to MDD values for Plastic
reinforced subbase.
The use of 0.2% PET Bottle strip with
an AR=1, (10 mm X 10 mm) exhibits 4 times
stronger than the minimum requirement
specified in the ITEM 200 of the DPWH
Bluebook and has a CBR value higher than
the conventional subbase.
Cost of Soil
It can also be concluded that the effect
of PET Bottle strip reinforcement in the
strength of the subbase depends largely on
₱ 68,551.80
the type of subbase to be used (source) and
size of the strips. For best result of
engineering properties of low quality or
poorly graded subbase, it is more suitable to
reinforce with 0.2% PET strip content and
PET strip size of (10 mm X 10 mm).
Furthermore, it has been analyzed that
for every km of a 4 m carriageway with a sub
base thickness of 0.20 m, the quantity of a
typical PET Bottle required is 181,354 pcs
with an exact amount of ₱ 68,551.80 if
assumed that it will be bought in the
junkshops. Thus, from this amount it can be
inferred that 0.2% of PET Bottle strips can be
used as an economical soil reinforcement
which increases the CBR strength of the
subbase without the use of natural gravels for
less coarser subbase/soils.
 Research concerning reinforcing
subbase with PET Bottle strip is still in its
infancy stage and limited. The study has
successfully investigated the feasibility of
using PET Bottle strips in the Civil
Engineering field particularly in geotechnical
applications and added on the existing
knowledge.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The tests carried out are small scale
laboratory experiment only, which was
conducted in order to achieve the main
objective of the study to investigate the
engineering behavior of PET Bottle strip
as a reinforcing material on subbase. It is
therefore recommended that a field (in
situ) trial be done in order to investigate
the performance of the subbase
reinforced with PET Bottle strip in the
field or a large scale tests can also be
executed.
2. The tests are done with only two type of
soil which are locally available subbase.
The effectiveness of waste PET bottle
strips as reinforcing materials with other
types of subbase especially with those
having a low CBR strength (low quality
subbase), need further tests and
investigation in order to evaluate its
engineering properties and geotechnical
engineering applications.
3. The type of plastic used is PET
(Polyethylene Terephthalate) only. If
other types of plastics such as LDPE,
HDPE etc. or combinations of the
different type of plastic are used, then the
quantum of improvement of different soil
parameters (i.e. MDD, OMC, and CBR)
would be different. Further tests are
needed to exactly quantify their effects on
geotechnical applications.
4. Final behavior of the subbase with PET
Plastic strips still need to be explored and
various other tests (i.e. permeability,
consolidation and tri-axial tests) need to
be performed to study the behavior of
subbase reinforced with PET bottle strips.
5. The five categories of specimens tested of
0.2%, 1/3%, 0.4%, 2/3% and 1% PET
plastic waste flakes inclusion where too
few to draw conclusive results.
Therefore, further studies of analyzing
engineering behavior of subbase with
different sizes and percentage of PET
bottle strips inclusion should be
conducted. This will increase the number
of specimens hence conclusions based on
a wide number of specimens will be
made.
6. In the present work, the mixing of plastic
strips was done uniformly. If PET bottle
strips were added using a definite pattern
(i.e. horizontally in layers, vertical layers,
inclined manner), then further tests would
be required to quantify the results.
7. Since the study manually cut the PET
Bottles into strips, it has been
recommended to develop a machine or a
cutting tool that can be used so that the
process of manual cutting can be
eliminated.
8. Also the researchers recommend the use
of the other parts of the PET Bottle that is
not used in this study, to be recycled.
9. PET plastics in general may take about
500 years to degenerate, yet the life span
of infrastructures specifically in road
construction where PET Plastic strips is
applied may be between 10 – 50 years.
Therefore, it is recommended that once
an infrastructure reaches its life span, the
composite wastes ought to be recycled
and integrated within other construction
materials to come up with a new
infrastructure. This practice will make the
proposed composite sustainable, by
preventing risks to the generations to
come and lowering the costs of the
project.
 REFERENCES
A.K. Choudhary, J.N. Jha and K.S. Gill
(2010). A Study on CBR Behavior of Waste
Plastic strip Reinforced Soil.
Ahmed Abu Ishaiba (2015). Mechanical
Properties of Concrete Using Recycled
Plastic.
Anas Ashraf, B. Arya Sunil, B. J. Dhanya, B.
Mariamma Joseph, Meera Varghese, B. and
M. Veena, B. (2011). Soil Stabilisation Using
Raw Plastic Bottles.
Arulmalar Ramaraj, B.Arch, M.T.P.
Jothilakshmy Nagammal, B. Arch, M. T.P,
PhD (2014). Exploring the Current Practices
of Post-Consumer PET Bottles and the
Innovative Applications as a Sustainable
Building Material – A Way Ahead.
Bhavin Kashiyani1, Prof. Jayeshkumar
Pitroda, Dr F S Umrigar (2013). Plastic
Waste: Opportunities For Eco-friendly
Material of Bituminous Road Construction.
F. Ahmad1, A. R. Razali, I. S. M. Razelan,
S.S. A. Jalil, M.S. M. Noh, A. A. Idris
(2017). Utilization of polyethylene
terephthalate (PET) in bituminous mixture
for improved performance of roads.
Hussam Farhan Yousif (2015). Effect of
Expansive Subgrade Soil on Reinforced
Subbase Layer
Jaswinder Singh, Vinod Kumar Sonthwal and
Jasvir S Rattan (2016). Review on
Improvement of Engineering Properties of
soil Using Waste Plastic Bottles Strips
(Polyethylene Terephthalate).
Jihan Elsheikhidriss Ibrahim Eltayeb and
AbdElshakoor Awad Elkareem Elhindy
(2018). Utilization of Waste Plastic in Soil
Backfill.
John Groover Luwalaga (2016). Analysing
the Behaviour of Soil Reinforced with
Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Plastic
Waste.
L.D. Poulikakos, C. Papa daska lupoulon, B.
Cannone Hufko f. Gschosser A. Cannone
Falchetto, M. Bueno, M.Arraigada, J. Sonsa,
R. Ruiz C. Petit M. Loizidan M, N. partl.
(2016). Harvesting the unexplored potential
of European waste of material for road
construction.
Raghu P.V., Mukherjee S.P. and Chakrabarti
S. (2015). Improvement of Shear Strength of
Clayey Soil Using Randomly Distributed
PET Bottle Strips.
Rashik Karmacharya, Indra Prasad Acharya
(2017). Reinforcement of Soil Using
Recycled Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET)
Bottle Strips.
S. Peddaiah. A. Burman. S. Sreedeep (2018).
Experimental Study on Effect of Waste
Plastic Bottle Strips in Soil Improvement.
Sharan Veer Singh1, Mahabir Dixit2 (2011).
Stabilization of Soil by Using Waste Plastic
Material: A Review.
BusinessMirror (2018) retrieved Decemeber
30, 2018, from
https://businessmirror.com.ph/2018/07/03/pe
t-bottles-have-90-percent-retrieval-rate-in-
the-philippines/
Mateo, Janvic (The Philippine Star) (2018)
retrieved January 05,2019, from
https://www.philstar.com/business/science-
and-
environment/2018/05/03/1811546/philippine
s-major-contributor-plastic-oceans
DPWH Blue Book (2013) - Standard
Specifications for Highways Bridges and
Airports